Guide · Litigation

Are Non-Competes
Enforceable in Florida?

Yes, more readily than almost anywhere else in the country, if the covenant is drafted the way § 542.335 requires. Here is how courts analyze it, and what the 2025 CHOICE Act added for high-earning employees.

By Paul KoganPublished April 14, 2026Updated October 12, 2026

Short answer

Yes. Florida enforces a non-compete that is in writing, signed by the employee, protects a legitimate business interest (trade secrets, confidential information, customer relationships, goodwill, or specialized training), and is reasonable in time, area, and scope under § 542.335. Six months or less is presumed reasonable for employees; more than two years is presumed unreasonable. Since July 1, 2025, the CHOICE Act lets employers bind employees earning more than twice their county's mean wage for up to four years, with a preliminary injunction the court must grant.

At a glance

Governing statute: § 542.335
Employee safe harbor: ≤ 6 months
Employee ceiling: > 2 years
Sale-of-business ceiling: > 7 years
Legitimate-interest categories: 5
Irreparable-harm presumption: § 542.335(1)(j)
CHOICE Act (2025): Up to 4 years
CHOICE Act injunction: Mandatory

Most restrictive-covenant disputes in Florida rise or fall on a single statute: Fla. Stat. § 542.335. Unlike California (which voids most non-competes outright) or states that apply a fuzzy reasonableness test, Florida has a detailed statutory framework that lays out exactly what courts can and cannot consider.

The short version: a Florida non-compete is enforceable if (1) it's in writing and signed by the person being restrained, (2) it protects a legitimate business interest from a statutorily-defined list, and (3) the restriction is reasonably necessary in time, geography, and line of business.

Step 1 · The Legitimate Business Interest Test

Under § 542.335(1)(b), the party seeking enforcement must plead and prove a legitimate business interest supporting the restriction. The statute enumerates five non-exclusive categories:

1. Trade secrets
As defined by the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Ch. 688). The classic category, and the one with the broadest reach (no geographic limit required).
2. Valuable confidential business or professional information
Customer lists, pricing, margins, internal processes, and other information that doesn’t rise to trade-secret level but still has real competitive value.
3. Substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients
The classic category for sales reps, account managers, and professionals whose book of business was developed on the employer’s dime.
4. Customer, patient, or client goodwill
Associated with a specific geographic location, trade name, or marketing area.
5. Extraordinary or specialized training
Training beyond what’s standard in the industry, paid for by the employer.

Florida courts have consistently refused to enforce non-competes that boil down to “we don't want ordinary competition.” The statute makes clear that restraining naked competition, without more, is not a legitimate business interest.

Step 2 · Reasonable Time, Geography, and Scope

Section 542.335(1)(d) creates statutory presumptions on duration:

Former employees / agents / independent contractors: 6 months or less is presumed reasonable; more than 2 years is presumed unreasonable.
Former distributors, dealers, franchisees, and licensees: 1 year or less presumed reasonable; more than 3 years presumed unreasonable.
In connection with the sale of a business: 3 years or less presumed reasonable; more than 7 years presumed unreasonable.
Trade-secret cases: 5 years or less presumed reasonable; more than 10 years presumed unreasonable.

Geography and scope must be tailored to the legitimate business interest: a sales rep who called on Broward and Miami-Dade shouldn't be restrained from working anywhere in Florida. Courts take geographic overreach as a drafting signal and will often modify (not void) the covenant.

Step 3 · The Modify-Not-Discard Rule

Under § 542.335(1)(c), if a covenant is overbroad or otherwise not reasonably necessary, the court shall modify it and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest. This is a two-edged rule. For plaintiffs, it means a flawed non-compete isn't automatically fatal. For defendants, it means you can't rely on “that restriction is way too broad” as a knockout defense: the court will blue-pencil it down to whatever slice actually survives.

Step 4 · The Injunction

Non-compete enforcement is an injunction-driven practice. Under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610, and the four-part test Florida courts apply, the movant must show:

A substantial likelihood of success on the merits
Irreparable harm absent an injunction
The legal remedy (damages) is inadequate
The injunction serves the public interest

Section 542.335(1)(j) gives the movant a major head start on prong 2: violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury. That statutory presumption is the single biggest reason non-compete plaintiffs prevail in Florida when the drafting holds up.

What the Statute Doesn't Let Courts Consider

Section 542.335(1)(g) is a drafter-friendly feature: courts are expressly forbidden from considering several equities that would otherwise tilt against enforcement. They cannot consider (i) any hardship on the person being restrained, (ii) the party's lack of negotiating power, or (iii) a policy against restraints on competition unless reduced to a statutory rule. Florida is intentionally out of step with most of the country here.

What the 2025 CHOICE Act Changed

On July 1, 2025, Florida added a second, stricter regime on top of § 542.335: the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act, codified as Part II of Chapter 542 (§§ 542.41 to 542.45, ch. 2025-213). It applies only to a defined class of higher-earning employees and only to agreements that meet its formalities, but inside that class it is the most employer-friendly non-compete law in the country.

Who is covered
An employee or individual contractor who earns, or is reasonably expected to earn, a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage of the Florida county where the employer has its principal place of business (or, for an out-of-state employer, the county where the employee lives). Salary excludes bonuses, commissions, tips, benefits, and other discretionary pay, so the threshold is base pay. Certain licensed health care practitioners are carved out.
Covered non-compete agreements
A written agreement that restricts the covered employee, for up to four years after employment ends and within a defined geographic area, from working in a similar role or one where the employee would likely use the employer's confidential information or customer relationships. To qualify, the employer must advise the employee in writing of the right to consult counsel and give at least seven days to review, and the employee must acknowledge in writing that they will receive confidential information or customer relationships.
Covered garden-leave agreements
A notice period of up to four years during which the employer keeps paying the same base salary and benefits and the employee agrees not to work elsewhere. After the first 90 days the employee does not have to perform services, and the employer can shorten the period with 30 days' written notice.
The injunction is mandatory
On application, a court must preliminarily enjoin a covered employee who breaches a covered agreement from providing services to anyone else for the restricted period. The employee can seek to modify or dissolve it only by proving, by clear and convincing evidence based on non-confidential information, one of a short list of grounds, such as the employer failing to pay the promised salary after a chance to cure, or the new work not being similar. That flips the usual injunction posture: the burden is on the employee.
What did not change
The CHOICE Act does not replace § 542.335. Agreements that do not meet its requirements, employees under the wage threshold, and every restrictive covenant signed before July 1, 2025 remain governed by the § 542.335 framework described in the four steps above. The two regimes coexist, and most Florida employees are still under the older one.

The practical effect for South Florida employers: a well-drafted CHOICE Act agreement with a covered employee turns the injunction from a contested four-part showing into something close to a formality. For employees, the seven-day review period and the right-to-counsel notice are the moment to get advice, because once the agreement is signed the court's discretion to refuse enforcement is narrow. For everyone outside the covered class, which is still most of the workforce, § 542.335 is the law, and the four-step analysis above is unchanged.

Keep reading

Paul Kogan

Fort Lauderdale Litigation Attorney, The Kogan Firm, P.A.

17+ years
Florida Bar
Martindale Peer Rated

Facing a Non-Compete Issue?

The first 30 days set the tone.

Whether you're enforcing against a departing employee or defending one, we'll assess the covenant, the facts, and the path to an injunction (or past one).

Free Consultation Start Case Intake

This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

5 Contracts Every FL Business Owner Needs

Before year-end hits, make sure your business is protected. Here are five essential contracts every South Florida business owner should have in place.

Protect Your Assets If Your Business Is Sued

A lawsuit against your Florida business can become a personal financial crisis if you're not protected. Here's what actually works.

Asset vs Stock Purchase: What Buyers Must Know

Buying a business in Florida? The structure of your deal matters more than the price. Here's what asset and stock purchases actually mean for you.

Are Non-Competes Enforceable in Florida?